In 1998, Jean H. Huber revisited the taxonomic status of Aphyosemion Bualanum (=BUA) and Aphyosemion Elberti (=ELB) in his Miscellaneous Notes on Some Systematic Difficulties Regarding Old World Cyprinodonts (Huber, 1998).

Using internal morphology, including X-ray analysis of the types, Huber concluded that ELB and BUA were "almost certainly the same."

He attributed the morphological differences noted by Seegers (1988) to the poor preservation of the BUA holotype (ZMB 21947), which exhibited missing fin rays, a compressed body, and even folding in half—artifacts that could easily mislead interpretation.

Based on this, Huber re-established BUA as the valid name, relegating ELB to a junior synonym, a position later codified in his Killidata 2000.

Huber’s approach suggests a pragmatic stance: rather than requiring exhaustive evidence to confirm BUA’s priority, he viewed ELB’s elevation by Seegers as a taxonomic error lacking substance.

In personal communication (as relayed), Huber reportedly argued that "they did not need to prove BUA was right because ELB was a mistake," dismissing Seegers’ separation as rhetorical rather than evidence-based.

Indeed, Seegers’ own justification—"Panchax Bualanus (=BUA) Ahl, 1924 most probably is a valid species, but it seems that this species is not identical with the species bearing this name from 1968 up to now" (Seegers, 1986)—offers little beyond supposition, with no detailed morphological or ecological data to support splitting the taxa.

Huber’s reliance on the types’ similarity, despite their condition, shifted the burden of proof onto proponents of ELB’s distinctiveness, effectively challenging them to substantiate a claim he saw as unfounded.

Further weakening the case for ELB, arguments by others in its favor amount to little more than its inclusion on lists: 1) J. van der Zee (jvdz) has recanted his earlier support, 2) Ken Lazara, who listed it as valid in 2001, has passed away and offered no detailed defense, and 3) other references, such as Agnèse et al. (2013), provide no opinion on the taxonomy beyond noting its existence.

Thus, all purported arguments for the validation of ELB lack substance and fail to meet the bar for a valid name—repeating an invalid name does not make it valid.

This perspective aligns with taxonomic principles under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), where the senior synonym (BUA, described earlier in Ahl’s 1924 paper) takes precedence unless compelling evidence demonstrates specific distinction.

Huber’s re-examination, while not definitive due to the holotype’s degradation, provided a stronger empirical foundation than Seegers’ earlier speculation, tipping the scales toward synonymy.

Implications for the Debate

Huber’s stance reframes the BUA-ELB controversy as less a question of proving BUA’s validity and more a critique of ELB’s legitimacy.

If ELB’s separation rests on "not a single piece of evidence other than rhetoric" (per Huber’s alleged comment), and subsequent mentions offer no meaningful support, then maintaining it as a valid species requires new, concrete data—morphological, genetic, or ecological—that Seegers and others failed to provide.

This interpretation underscores the provisional nature of the current consensus: BUA holds as the accepted name not because it is unassailably proven, but because ELB’s case remains unconvincing.